The underlying dispute arose out of a 1997 contract to build oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico between Corporación Mexicana De Mantenimiento
In Montefiore Medical Center v. Teamsters Local 272, 642 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that an in-network provider's state law based reimbursement claim is completely preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq. (ERISA), and rejected the provider's argument that an otherwise valid assignment of benefits is a "nullity" whenever care is provided in-network.
The U.S. Supreme Court does not often issue decisions interpreting the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), so when the Justices speak, the issues are significant.
Today, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous 8-0 decision (with Justice Sotomayor taking no part in the consideration of the case) vacated and remanded CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, No. 09-804, 563 U.S. ____ (2011) to the district court for further consideration.
On May 4, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed its decision reversing the order of the district court dismissing plaintiffs’ idea theft claim on the grounds of copyright preemption, remanding for further proceedings.
On April 21, 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion to remand claims that were completely preempted under ERISA.
In a pair of recent decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that federal courts have jurisdiction over a class action that has been removed from state court when a defendant estimates that the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement has been met, unless the plaintiff can show that it would be legally impossible to recover that amount.
In the first excessive-fee case decided by a federal court in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Jones v. Harris Associates, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on December 9 reinstated its order granting summary judgment to defendant Ameriprise Financial in Gallus v. Ameriprise.
On September 29, 2010, in the Computer Associates International Derivative Litigation, Judge Thomas C. Platt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss derivative claims asserted against Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y") and KPMG LLP ("KMPG"), the former and current auditors of Computer Associates ("CA").
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the “insured vs. insured” exclusion in a Directors and Officers (“D&O”) liability policy is ambiguous in a case brought by the legacy entity’s directors and officers against representatives of a newly formed corporate entity.